<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<font face="Verdana">David,<br>
<br>
Very much agree. The purpose of MSism (multistakeholderism) should
first be clear (because the method also depends on that) -
basically to 'make public policy' or to obtain greater engagement
of all affected parties in development of public policy. The two
are different things. However, and I have raised this question
often here, those who most solidly profess MSism have generally
not been forthcoming in this matter. (And to clarify, 'technical
policy making' within narrow pulbic policy defined remits is to be
seen as different from larger, substantive public policy making.)<br>
<br>
Only after we know about the purpose can we come to methods. But
as you have seen from the recent conversations, there is
reluctance to discuss even the 'methods' by upholders of IG
variety of MSism. And yes, democratic ideals and norms remain the
ulitimate test to evaluate both the purpose and methods.<br>
<br>
parminder<br>
<br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Saturday 23 March 2013 08:26 PM,
David Allen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:D2D36FB0-B1FD-45B0-9185-5BE4F3AFF020@post.harvard.edu"
type="cite">
<div>
<div>This was put forward as basis to specify the mission:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Mar 22, 2013, at 3:39 AM</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">...<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto;
text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; ">the lack of clear principles
on methodology</span></blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">...</blockquote>
</div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2;
text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform:
none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; "><br>
</span></div>
<div>Method is always important - but the discussion has been
about purpose. Before method.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>For a reason. A folksy saying reminds: "If we don't know
where we are going, any road will take us there ..."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>First, we establish purpose. Only after purpose is
clear, then method may figure out how we get to that objective.
Otherwise, ...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The second blogpost goes straight to the question of purpose.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/">http://gurstein.wordpress.com/2013/03/21/in-defense-of-multistakeholder-processes/</a></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The question, in a nutshell, to define purpose: What role
may MS possibly have in a democracy?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Certainly not MS as a replacement - not, as for instance, the
stance of the US exiting WCIT, in Kramer's sign-off.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>MS, not as the policy-making mechanism.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Rather - perhaps - as a means toward greater engagement,
within a democracy, as that second blogpost discusses.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Policy is set by, and reserved to, democratic means.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With, then, perhaps some clarity on purpose for MS - method
can become the topic.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>______</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The eventual discussion of method, premature now, found
fodder - nonetheless - in the below:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, let's say it again:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>“… the T/A stakeholder group includes probably no more than
3-400 people in the entire world …"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Sizes of the stakeholder groups are most starkly lopsided.
Their constituencies, T/A compared with the other three.
Different by a number of orders of magnitude. T/A is in the
thousands. CS / business / governments are in the hundreds of
millions, billions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Starting with the facts is the first step.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then, after the stark lopsidedness, representation. How
would these three, or four, tribes represent each of their
groups? Who will?</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The standard: Hard-won democratic governance has developed
strenuous procedures for elections. In cases - for an example
- where a society has yet to learn / adopt suitable procedures,
international observers arrive and oversee election processes.
To insure fair representation.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Then, to suppose representation via a club of 'usual
suspects,' perhaps three or four times a few dozen - a hundred
or so in total - points at some of the worst of tribal outcomes.
Clubby, elitist control of power, where mutual back-scratching
proscribes serious critical analysis. Where interests served
become private and individual, not the public interest. Such
has been, across history, the path to some of the most despised
outcomes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>David</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:56 PM:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Well yes, that was my point. You are going to find the
usual suspects from each of these communities, and that
makes it a few dozen each.<br>
<br>
<br>
On 22-Mar-2013, at 2:13:<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi David,<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:12 PM,
David Allen<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu">David_Allen_AB63@post.harvard.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The T/A definition from its focal
point:<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">"... scientists who developed the
Internet and the technical<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">organizations/people who run it."<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Which is the starting point for
doing the counting.<br>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">ok, but realistically, I would bet
that the pool of acceptable<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">candidates would be closer to 30-40.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">I would say that this applies to CS
and biz SGs as well.<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">If we were to do an analysis of who
has "represented" the 3 non-gov<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">SGs over the last decade in these UN
fora I would be surprised if it<br>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">were more than 30-40 from each SG.</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>